Judgment: 2023-11-17 · Court archive

High Court says Bio Marine rescue case justified by scale and complexity

The court upheld the choice of the High Court for the company’s Part 10A proceedings, finding its financial affairs unusually large and complex. It also granted a stay against enforcement measures.

The High Court · [2023] IEHC 641

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Bio Marine Ingredients Ireland Limited
  • Revenue Commissioners
  • Eight creditors
  • Michael Quinn (Judge)
What

The court upheld the choice of the High Court for the company’s Part 10A proceedings, finding its financial affairs unusually large and complex. It also granted a stay against enforcement measures.

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • Dublin
When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The High Court has ruled that Bio Marine Ingredients Ireland Limited’s rescue proceedings could be brought in the High Court because the scale and complexity of its financial affairs gave good reason to do so.

The High Court has ruled that Bio Marine Ingredients Ireland Limited’s rescue proceedings could be brought in the High Court because the scale and complexity of its financial affairs gave good reason to do so.

Mr Justice Michael Quinn delivered the judgment on 17 November 2023. It addresses which court was appropriate for the proceedings; the decision to grant a stay against enforcement measures had been made on 1 November in a separate, ex tempore judgment.

The company’s directors resolved on 20 October to appoint a process adviser under Part 10A of the Companies Act 2014, with the appointment taking effect on 23 October. The process adviser recommended the High Court. The company applied there for a stay under section 558N after eight creditors that had threatened legal proceedings were notified. The landlord of its operating premises and the Revenue Commissioners made submissions. No party opposed the stay. After hearing affidavit evidence from the company and the process adviser, the court granted it, having been satisfied there was a reasonable prospect of survival of the company or part of its undertaking as a going concern.

The judgment explains that Part 10A proceedings for eligible small and micro companies should generally be brought in the Circuit Court unless good reasons support the High Court. The process adviser cited the company’s Monaghan base, creditor demands and the scale of its share capital, indebtedness and deficit. He also argued that High Court case management could support an efficient process. The court accepted only the financial scale and complexity as a good reason. It rejected the location, anticipated need for a stay and general case-management efficiency as sufficient grounds. A 49-day timetable for reporting on rescue-plan meetings, raised by company counsel, was also not a reason to bypass the Circuit Court.

The company’s statement of affairs listed assets with a book value of €11.3 million, estimated to realise €2.9 million, and 91 unsecured creditors owed €9.5 million. It reported accumulated losses of €30 million at the end of 2022 and estimated an overall deficit of €15.5 million. The judgment describes a business processing fish into protein ingredients for human and animal foods, with domestic and international contracts and negotiations with multinational producers.

The court said it was not necessary to remit the matter to the Circuit Court. It emphasised that a company’s location outside Dublin, the need to seek a stay, and time pressures associated with the rescue process do not, by themselves, justify using the High Court. The judgment does not determine whether a rescue plan will be approved.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review